Rehabilitating Western Sydney’s bushland: Processes needed for sustained recovery

The ecological and cultural

dimensions of restoration

both involve subtle and

gradual processes, the

results of which may only

emerge into full view after

long periods. A restoration

case study in western

Sydney suggests that lasting

results require sustained

programs and long-term

commitment.

Western Sydney OpenSpace CorridorsThe NSW Department of Urban Affairs andPlanning (DUAP) owns and managesaround 1500 ha of generally linear areas ofland in the South Creek Catchment,located in the central portion of the Cum-berland Plain. The sites are collectivelyknown as the Western Sydney Open SpaceCorridors (although some areas are nowincorporated into the newly describedWestern Sydney Regional Parklands), andwere originally acquired as public utilitycorridors to accommodate urban infra-structure for a growing city.Nonetheless, it

has always been understood that theseareas could also serve to break up thesprawl of the city with green open space.

More recently, a community expecta-tion has emerged that the woodland areasshould be managed by governments toconserve regional biodiversity, catchmenthealth and landscape character. Reflectingthis, the Sydney Regional EnvironmentalPlan no. 31 now describes the primaryroles for the Western Sydney Parklands asbeing to ‘promote recreation, biodiversityand heritage conservation and landscapeprotection’ (NSW Department of UrbanAffairs and Planning 2000, p. 1).

ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 2 NO 3 DECEMBER 2001 167

Rehabilitating Western Sydney’sbushland: Processes needed forsustained recoveryBy Richard Davies and Judy Christie*

F E A T U R E

This paper is based on field work undertaken

in western Sydney by Richard Davies and

Judy Christie, working as part of the Sydney

team of Greening Australia (NSW) (142 Addison

Road, Marrickville, NSW 2204, Australia.

Tel: +61-2-95609144. Email: [email protected]).

Richard Davies’ current address is Urban Wildlife

Renewal Program, National Parks and Wild-

life Service (PO 1967, Hurstville, NSW 2220, Aus-

tralia. Email: [email protected]).

Recently planted site in the Ropes Creek utility corridor. This is one of many linear areas inWestern Sydney originally set aside by government for the supply of electricity and otherservices to the expanding city of Sydney. These utility corridors are now also being managed asparklands for recreation, biodiversity, heritage and landscape protection. (Photo: DanielWilliams, Greening Australia)

168 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 2 NO 3 DECEMBER 2001

F E A T U R E

Cumberland Plain Woodland

Like other temperate eucalypt woodlands once widespread throughout southern Australia, the woodlands of the Cumber-

land Plain near Sydney have been cleared for agriculture. They are now reduced to fragments of remnant or regrowth vege-

tation, set within a variegated landscape where native and introduced species coexist in varying proportions. Of about

120 000 ha of this vegetation community calculated to have existed in 1750, only about 8.83% remains as ‘reasonably

intact bushland occurring in patches greater than 0.5 ha’. Only about 2% of this ‘reasonably intact’ area is protected in the

National Parks estate (National Park, Nature Reserve or Regional Park). Of the various land tenures containing Cumberland

Plain Woodland, the highest proportion occurs on privately owned rural land (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service

2000a). Cumberland Plain woodland is now recognized as an Endangered Ecological Community under the NSW Threatened

Species Conservation Act 1995 and the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Vegetation. Cumberland Plain Woodland is dominated by Grey Box (Eucalyptus moluccana) and River Red Gum (E.

tereticornis) with Narrow-leaved Ironbark (E. crebra), Thin-leaved Stringybark (E. eugenoides) and Spotted Gum (Corymbia

maculata) occurring less frequently. A small tree stratum is often present and most frequently includes either Hickory Wattle

(Acacia implexa) or Parramatta Wattle (Acacia parramattensis ssp. parramattensis) and Black Wattle (Acacia decurrens). A

shrub stratum is usually present dominated by Blackthorn (Bursaria spinosa) and rarely includes other species such as

Acacia falcata, Coffee Bush (Breynia oblongifolia), Indigofera australis, and Hop Bush (Dodonaea viscosa ssp. cuneata).

The ground stratum is variable. Often there is a good cover of herbs including Kidney Weed (Dichondra repens), spear-

grasses (Aristida vagans, A. ramosa), Brunoniella australis, Weeping Grass (Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides), Kangaroo

Grass (Themeda australis), Desmodium varians, Plume Grass (Dichelachne micrantha) and Opercularia diphylla.

Threats. The Scientific Committee determination for this community recognizes threats to its survival as including

clearance for agriculture, grazing, hobby and poultry farms, housing and other developments, invasion by exotic plants, and

increased nutrient loads due to fertiliser run-off from gardens and farmland, dumped refuse or sewer discharge. The NSW

National Parks and Wildlife Service also recognizes the threats of mowing and inappropriate fire regimes (K. Wale,

pers.comm., 2001). All these threats require addressing as a priority — with clearing still being the threat of most concern —

with restoration management also required in many cases.

[This ‘box’ was adapted from the Cumberland Plain Woodland Final Determination (NSW Scientific Committee 1999) and the

native vegetation mapping of the Cumberland Plain (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2000a; 2000b]

A Cumberland Plain Woodland site withthe dominant trees Cabbage Gum (Eucalyptus amplifolia), Forest Red Gum(E. tereticornis) and Broad-leaved Apple(Angophora subvelutina). Shrubs in theunderstorey at this site include Black-thorn (Bursaria spinosa) and Acacia par-ramattensis; while ground covers includeWeeping Grass (Microlaena stipoides)Glycine spp. and Brunoniella australis.(Photo: Richard Davies, GreeningAustralia)

Greening Austra l iainvolvement

In the early 1990s, Greening Australiawere engaged by DUAP to advise on man-agement of the landscapes of the SouthCreek Catchment, which typically containsmall, rare patches of semidegraded (now

endangered) Sydney Coastal River FlatForest and Cumberland Plain Woodlandembedded in large areas of highly modi-fied, often derelict agricultural land (seeBox 1.) Greening Australia identified thatthe Corridors provide valuable opportu-nity to more actively manage importantareas of parkland environment and to

rehabiliate land and vegetation; thebroader purpose of which would be toimprove catchment health and make animportant contribution to the conserva-tion of biodiversity. As a community orga-nization dedicated to the development ofecologically sustainable landscapes andcommunities, Greening Australia also seesthat the values of these woodland areasextend beyond the understandings pro-vided by science, environmental engineer-ing and aesthetic considerations. Weconsider that the environment of theSouth Creek Catchment may provide avery important focus in helping to inspirethe large population of western Sydney todevelop an ethic of caring for our envi-ronment — an ethic which may be funda-mental to the evolution of a culturecapable of supporting sustainable landmanagement in the region

Two main foci — biological and culturalchange

Through the past 9 years, DUAP andGreening Australia have worked togetherin the Greening Western Sydney Project(GWS); implementing the GWS projectplans developed by DUAP. Implementa-tion of the GWS project involves bothtechnical and social mechanisms for: (i)manipulating the physical (particularly thebiological) environment to restore naturalvalues required for catchment health;and (ii) overcoming barriers to allow localcommunities to positively relate to thesenatural values and support restoration.

Need for a more sustainedapproach

In undertaking the project, both GreeningAustralia and DUAP identified that thechanges would not come quickly and werelikely to involve processes of gradual and,often, subtle change. In turn, it was under-stood that these changes would requirelong-term commitment before resultswould become apparent.

A plethora of well-intentioned but oftenunsuccessful revegetation projects acrossthe country conducted during the 1970sand early 1980s (and ongoing) demon-strate that a superficial approach to reveg-etation does not necessarily produce plant


F E A T U R E

Greening Western Sydney ecological restoration project sites are located in a number of openspace areas of the broader South Creek Catchment. Some of these (Eastern Creek, Horsley Parkand Hoxton Park) now form the Western Sydney Regional Parklands. Other major open spacecorridors are located along the main arm of South Creek and the tributary of Ropes Creek. (Map:Greening Australia, reprinted with permission)

communities that can develop and persistover time. In striving to restore large-scalesites, then, public agencies and restorationorganizations have come to appreciaterestoration strategies in much less simplis-tic terms than may have been the case inpast decades. Striving to adopt a more eco-logically informed approach, we subscribeto the view that restoration interventionsare best carried out in a way that harnes-ses any natural regeneration capacity andsupplements it with active revegetation tothe extent natural recovery capacity isdepleted (Perkins 1994a; Greening Aus-tralia 1999). We also strive to integrateworks within remnants with works thatconnect remnants — a process requiringlarge and long-term inputs. From theoutset therefore GWS sought to undertakerevegetation works in a way that takes intoaccount lessons learned from landscapeecology, restoration ecology and restora-tion practice elsewhere. Because of thisgreater demand, Greening Australia hasmade a commitment to a sustainedprogram of works; has modified equip-ment for specific use in revegetation; and,has evolved and tested new techniques forweed control.

We also realize, however, that sustain-able results will not be achieved solely byproficient land management techniques.Many of the semiurban natural areas inwestern Sydney are perceived as ‘no mansland’ and are frequently degraded by rub-bish dumping, illegal vehicle entry andinappropriate land use.Yet, in contrast, weobserve that land (in the same location)that is valued by surrounding communitiesis not subject to abuse. In striving to meetthe challenge of elevating communitycaring for public land, then, we have alsocome to appreciate community involve-ment in much less simplistic terms. Wehave learned the hard way that some-thing greater than simple informationtransfer is usually required to shift atti-tudes and develop values. As a result, GWShas developed an ongoing program toconnect school students, families andadult groups to the sites in a stronger andmore meaningful way — and GreeningAustralia is now developing innovativeenvironmental extension activity into theculturally diverse communities of western

Sydney, many of whom appear ready todevelop bonds with their adoptive naturalenvironment.

Restoring the South Creekenvironment

Plant communityrestorat ion

As distinct from revegetation per se, GWS

has sought to adopt a goal of ‘highest

practicable extent’ restoration of the

sites’ pre-existing indigenous ecosystems

and ecological processes. (Perkins 1999).

To achieve this goal, we apply a range of

interventions to assist and reinforce a

process of (and potential for) natural

recovery. Land and vegetation manage-

ment plans have been prepared by Ian

Perkins for six sites within the corridors

(Perkins 1992, 1994b, 1995, 1997, 1998,

1999). All these planning documents

identify management zones derived from

an analysis of each site’s (i) condition/

resilience (i.e. capacity to regenerate given

assistance), and (ii) capacity to support

a range of land management activities

without degradation. Detailed maps iden-

tify sites of lower and higher resilience

with treatment recommendations match-

ed to each site type to guide on-ground

works.

At riparian sites such as Eastern Creek

at Glendenning, Ropes Creek and South

Creek, separate management objectives

apply to each of the Riparian, Floodplain,

Boundary (road frontage) and Archaeolog-

ical zones. Other management zones

include sensitive sites such as wetlands

and dams, erosion or salt hazard areas and

important remnant vegetation patches

including grasslands, shrublands and

woodlands. Based on assessments identi-

fied in the relevant plan, we define the

boundaries of management zones on

the ground when new work sites are

established. Fences are constructed to

limit the extent of grazing and other land

uses. Boundary markers such as pegs,

bollards or lightweight fence are estab-

lished where only boundary definition is

required.After grazing is removed from the restor-

ation sites, we approach our restoration

work on two fronts: the ‘assisted regenera-tion’ of small areas of remnant vegetationand ‘reconstruction’ revegetation of largerareas of cleared land (Perkins 1994a). Thiscombination of approaches is undertakenin a strategic manner to link swathes ofregrowth or remnant vegetation toincrease habitat area.Applying either inter-ventions in an appropriate and timelymanner, however, involves a capacity torespond to changes in condition at a finerscale than that identified in the plan sites.We have found on the Cumberland Plain,for example, that patches of natural regen-eration potential can occur within a recon-struction site and vice versa, and it hasbeen useful to develop a set of indicatorsto help field teams to assess regenerationpotential at a microsite level.The presenceof species which are sensitive to grazing orcultivation — species such as Flax Lily(Dianella sp.), Spear grasses (Aristidaspp.) and Fine-leaved Lomandra (Loman-dra filiformis), for example — can indi-cate higher regeneration potential thanother species. Conversely, evidence of cul-tivation or landfill (such as hummocky soilsurface) often indicates depleted potentialand shows us where more highly dis-turbed trouble spots exist. Working withthe vegetation on the Cumberland Plain,however, has shown us that it has surpris-ing resilience and that site assessmentshould err on the side of optimism,without overlooking the need for recon-struction in sites of clearly low potential.

Implementation of a restoration plan,then, begins with detailed decisionsmade on site by a supervised team;trained and experienced in minimumimpact bush regeneration techniques andplant identification. Choosing from thespectrum of treatments on the restorationcontinuum where regeneration potentialis high at one end and low at the other(Perkins 1994a), practitioners must deter-mine the most appropriate technique toapply to particular sections of the site.At the same time, the practitioner mustweigh up the selected restoration strategyagainst the resources of the project andadjust the strategy to achieve progress at ameaningful scale.

Based on experience over 8 years, GWShas arrived at a range of methodologies


F E A T U R E

that amounts to a synthesis of severalapproaches to woodland restoration.These methodologies — and those of arange of other practitioners who havefound that grazed, shale soil sites in theCumberland Plain are more challenging towork with than urban bushland on sand-stone soils — have been recently outlinedin a publication Bringing Back the Bushto Western Sydney, Best Practice Guide-lines for Bush Regeneration on theCumberland Plain [Hawkesbury-NepeanCatchment Manangement Trust & the Aus-tralian Association of Bush Regenerators(2001)].

Bush Regeneration in resilient sites

The priority objective and key responsibil-ity of the project is to secure the biodiver-sity values in remnant and regrowthpatches of natural vegetation. Assistednatural regeneration supported by compe-tent bush regenerators is the only way toachieve this result as, unfortunately, nopatch of woodland in the sites is ofsufficient quality to regenerate upon theremoval of grazing pressure alone. A stateof flux is experienced in woodland duringthe period following stock exclusion and a

vigilant bush regeneration program isrequired to ensure that native seedlingrecruitment is not outcompeted by weed.This is demanding on resources, expertiseand patience and has an initially high costper hectare per year.

Results to date have been very encour-aging. Focus has been on riparian zoneswhere remnant vegetation has been dam-aged by exotic, shrub, climber and ground-cover invasions. Strategic target weedingand comprehensive follow up in key areashas led to gradual but significant improve-ment in condition as extensive regenera-tion has occurred of native ground covers,shrubs and trees (see Box 2). Progress,however,has depended on consistent workby committed, skilled bush regeneratorsrigorously undertaking follow-up worksover some 3–5 years in each zone.

Reconstructing a woodland framework

Our cleared agricultural sites have beencolonized (through decades of pastureimprovement, grazing and frequent burn-ing) by naturalizing exotic grasses andforbs. Nonetheless, many native grassesand forbs characteristic of the Cumber-land Plain vegetation have persisted in

paddocks; even those historically sownwith exotic grasses. The future survival ofthese is likely to involve balancing a reduc-tion in competition from more competi-tive exotics with the maintenance of openniches for regeneration of native grasslandspecies. Using grazing manipulation tocreate these varied conditions, however, isnot practical because of reduced paddocksize, loss of access to stock water and theburden of policing lease conditions. Simi-larly, manipulation of exotic grasses withslashing and fire have their own practicallimitations on our sites (see Box 2).

In an effort to identify a more practicalbut effective treatment, then, we are cur-rently trialing revegetation with an inter-mediate density of trees and shrubs as animportant tool to not only reintroducepotential seed sources of missing treespecies but also reduce the competitiveadvantage exhibited by exotic grasses.We hypothesize that the developing coverprovided by trees and shrubs will improvesoil condition and create an intermediatedegree of shading that may increase inter-tussock spaces for native grasses and forbscurrently disadvantaged by exotic grassswards. The model for this hypothesisis twofold. First, the original ‘grassy’woodland we believe existed prior toEuropean settlement appeared to providea balance between scattered tree canopyand a grassy understorey. Second, towardsthe commencement of the project weobserved ‘halos’ of native grasses develop-ing under the drip-lines of regeneratingtrees in sites that were previously domi-nated by dense swards of exotic grass(I. Perkins, pers. comm., 1994). Revege-tation in this case, then, is not a clear-cutexercise in rebuilding a plant communityfrom scratch,but a more complex one thatinvolves subtle and more sustained inter-ventions tailored to manipulate competi-tion and thereby harness underlyingpotential for natural recovery.

To this end, cleared sites throughoutthe catchment are being revegetated withtree and shrub species whose seed hasbeen collected in nearby local nativevegetation. The use of seed from a localprovenance (origin) is a key principleunderpinning the integrity of the workand ensures genetic integrity when future


F E A T U R E

South Creek flows through this remnant patch of endangered River-flat Forest. The protection ofriparian zones is a high priority for the GWS project. This means that revegetation is carried outto extend and link isolated or narrow riparian vegetation patches to increase habitat area and toprotect remnant vegetation from deleterious ‘edge effects’ such as weed invasion and damageby livestock. (Photo: Judy Christie, Greening Australia)


F E A T U R E

Regeneration and reconstruction works in the corridors

Greening Australia approaches the ecological restoration challenge on two fronts: the ‘assisted regeneration’ of small areas

of remnant vegetation and ‘reconstruction’ revegetation of larger areas of cleared land (Perkins 1994a, Greening Australia

1999). This combination of approaches is undertaken in a strategic manner to link swathes of regrowth or remnant vege-

tation to increase habitat area.

Assisted Regeneration. At Glendenning in the Eastern Creek Corridor, Greening Australia has let a number of

contracts to bush regeneration teams since February 1995, resulting in high levels of native plant regeneration occurring

throughout the higher quality riparian zones (J. Diamond, pers. comm., 2001). The approaches to date have included both

‘target weeding’ of woody weeds and climbers and a more ‘comprehensive’ approach that includes removal of all weed strata

and the application of patch burns and soil disturbance where appropriate.

Control of populations of Green Cestrum (Cestrum parqui), privets (Ligustrum spp.), Box Thorn (Lycium ferocissimum) and

Balloon Vine (Cardiospermum grandiflorum) have preceeded a more systematic control of Tradescantia (Tradescantia flumi-

nensis), which becomes dominant during warmer, wetter seasons, blocking native regeneration at these times. With the

removal of the entire suite of weeds in remnants (including annuals weeds that emerge during the clearing process), native

regeneration has occurred of mainly ground covers including Weeping Grass (Microlaena stipoides), Right-angled Grass

(Entolasia sp.), Saltbush (Einadia hastata), Kidney Weed (Dichondra repens), Centella (Centella asiatica), Native Veronica

(Veronica sp.), Siegesbeckia sp. and the twiners Clematis aristata and Glycine sp.). In sites that were burnt (intentionally or

unintentionally) and also soil-disturbed, higher diversity of tree and shrub regeneration has occurred including Cabbage Gum

(Eucalptus amplifolia), Rough Barked Apple (Angophora floribunda), Melaleuca decora, Blackthorn (Bursaria spinosa) and,

occasionally, Grevillea juniperina. Works are ongoing, with the aim of consolidating the regeneration of vegetation along this

important riparian corridor.

Reconstruction. Our reconstruction strategy is to create a woodland framework using a selection of important species

found in the site’s pre-existing vegetation association. Other species may be added over time or may naturally recolonise.

Seed collection and revegetation has been occurring in the Corridors for 10 years. Since 1992, we estimate that over 200 000

trees and shrubs have been established across the sites. All plant material and seeds used are sourced from local remnant

or regrowth populations of native plants. Shrub and tree seed collection is undertaken by hand (by qualified staff and volun-

teers) and grass seed collection is undertaken using a two hopper, brush harvester mounted on a single cab 4-wheel drive

vehicle (‘Stipa’ brush harvester; Rosevale Engineering, Gulgong, Australia). Revegetation is undertaken using a combination

of volunteer manual planting; mechanical planting using the Treeliner tractor-mounted tree planter (Burkitt Ass. Pty Ltd,

Horsley Park, NSW, Australia, www.treeliner.com.au); and direct seeding using a Rodden 3 Tree Seeder (Woods & Forests

Native Plant Centre, Murray Bridge, SA, Australia).

In terms of direct seeding, wattles and other native peas have generally been the most responsive species, with eucalypts

being less reliable. In an attempt to replicate natural distribution, experimental direct seeding has been undertaken on some

sites in circular patches of single or dual species. This has been undertaken in micro sites particularly suited to that species —

an approach which may also allow future seed collection to be easier for some species. In general, current success rates with

direct seeding are 11 plants per metre of row and our replanting survival rates are highly dependent on seasonal conditions,

with rates ranging from 38% in drought conditions (1996/97 season) to 93% in good conditions (1997/98).

With an increase in the height of pasture grass after the removal of grazing and a locally high incidence of arson, young

revegetation sites have been especially vulnerable to damage from fire. At Hoxton Park, we have been refining our weed

treatment and fire management activities since 1998, and are now trialling an approach of more intensively preparing grass-

land areas (for planting or direct seeding) with slashed and raked perimeters for controlled burning in early summer. Weed

control is then carried out and is ongoing — not only to improve results of revegetation but also to control environmental

weeds throughout the corridor sites. Revegetation at Hoxton Park is being monitored for its value as habitat for birds, with

results being compared to a reference site of semi-mature regrowth woodland.

pollen exchange takes place betweenremnant and replanted woodland. As con-straints also currently exist in terms ofseed collection, propagation and fieldestablishment, this means we have only25 species available; a more narrow rangethan the original vegetation. We thereforesee our revegetation work as merely estab-lishing a ‘woodland framework’ into whichadditional plant and animal diversity canrecruit or be reintroduced in the futurewhen current constraints are overcome.

Progress so far

Experimental, quantitative monitoringneeds to be established in the reconstruc-tion sites before we can adequately testwhether revegetation can reduce weed.However; there are early indications thatenvironmental conditions within the sitesare changing in interesting ways as plantedor direct seeded vegetation develops.Under the developing 10 to 15-year-oldtree and shrub vegetation (about 800–1000 tree/shrub stems per ha or 2.5 mspacings), total groundcover biomass isvisibly reduced and the vigour of exoticgrasses is visibly much diminished. Manynative groundcover species are persistingunder the woodland canopy.

It is our preliminary view that revege-tation may not be merely reintroducingspecies but may also be forming an impor-tant mechanism for allowing understoreysuccession, particularly where used incombination with the timely control of

exotics. At the same time, replanting anddirect seeding is increasing habitat valuesand increasing the range of species avail-able to recover in a site after disturbance.For more conclusive assessment, how-ever, the processes will need to bestudied in detail, and this will depend onpartnerships with research organizations.Research is also warranted into the poten-tial extent of the assisted regenerationzone adjacent to remnants, as, while GWSoften undertakes planting right to theedge of existing woodland, an edge haspotential to recover naturally givenassisted regeneration treatments.

Community involvement

The environment of the South Creekcatchment cannot recover with input onlyfrom government. While governments atall levels have at one time or another takensteps to address environmental issues inthe corridors, there are limits to whatpolitical realities will allow as well aswhat can be achieved by a land manage-ment agency alone. Greening Australia iscontinuing to develop innovative environ-mental extension as there is little doubtthat improved environmental conscious-ness among the community would help inmanaging some of the problems. A cultureof environmentalism in the community isneeded to improve the environmentalvalue of land in private management andreduce pollution and rubbish dumping on

public land. An ethic of ‘caring’ for theenvironment is also likely to manifest as anincrease in community-based Landcare/Bushcare activity in the region.

The latest community survey by theNSW Environment Protection Agencyshows that while the environment ‘hasdeclined as a top of mind issue — from23% in 1994 (fixed list) to 14% in 1997(unprompted) and 10% in 2000 — it hasretained its relatively mid-range position inrelation to other social issues since 1994’(NSW Environment Protection Agency2001, p. 7). However, the environment wasranked as the third most important issuefor the attention of the State Governmentin 10 years’ time. Interestingly land degra-dation was referred to as the third mostimportant environmental issue (after airand water) — a rise from 2% to 10%.

Volunteering is achieving a high profilepost-Olympics. The year 2001 was desig-nated as the International Year of the Vol-unteer and it is estimated that in Sydneyabout 30% of volunteers who comethrough the Volunteering NSW organiza-tion are interested in doing environmentalwork (I.Thom,pers.com.,2001).However,it has been the experience of the GWSproject, that community concern does notnecessarily translate to action. No doubtthere are people throughout the SouthCreek Catchment who know about Aus-tralia’s environmnetal woes, but relativelyfew individuals have come forward to sup-port GWS community planting days evenwhen these were organized to piggybacksuch well publicised events as NationalTree Day. Yet this is what the environmentof the South Creek catchment needs —individual actions to back up the policies,programs, initiatives and investment ofgovernments.

GWS has faced this fact and, from thebeginning, the project has acknowledgeda dual role for a community involve-ment program. Initially the project reliedon community labour to get on-groundprogress. At the same time, significantresources that could have been used foron-ground results have been committedto raising awareness. GWS anticipated amultiplier effect from resources spent oncommunity coordination, whereby eachdollar spent elicits two, tens or even


F E A T U R E

Broad-scale revegetation in the 550 ha Hoxton Park Corridor where Greening Australia is in theprocess of establishing frameworks of Cumberland Plain Woodland and Sydney Coastal RiverFlat Forest associations. By a combination of manual planting, mechanical planting and directseeding, the GWS project has established an estimated 130 000 plants in the Hoxton Parkcorridor since 1995. (Photo: Richard Davies, Greening Australia)

hundreds of dollars worth of voluntaryactivity. It has turned out, however, that thescope for this effect to operate is verylimited in western Sydney and, if efficiencywere the focus, it would have to be saidthat some restoration activities could beundertaken professionally with less fundsthan those required to supervise and facili-tate volunteer contribution to the samelevel. Alternatively, we need to extend theways we engage communities and breakdown the process needed into identifi-able steps, so that the community couldbecome engaged at levels where they feelable to.The successful participation of non-Anglo groups in nursery production activi-ties is an example; and other opportunitiesinclude facilitating community growingtubestock in backyards, schools, etc.

Seeking to develop acul ture of‘environmenta l ism’

It is an objective of Greening Australia toraise community awareness of the role ofnative vegetation in maintaining or restor-ing a healthy, diverse and productive eco-system. This is achieved through GreeningAustralia’s Bushcare Support program aswell as being an objective of GWS.However, progress towards this objectivehas been just as challenging to manage as

any biological restoration objective. Bush-care projects typically aim to involve andinform the community through outputssuch as community activity days; involve-ment by schools; community forums andproject displays. DUAP has remained com-mitted to funding those outputs in GWS.While these outputs themselves are easilyachieved, it is less simple to measure andevaluate the outcomes of these activitiesagainst the objectives. The processes thatlink the activities to the outcomes in thecommunity,while arguably measurable,aresubtle and not easily seen.

What changes are achieved in anindividual’s environmental consciousnessduring fleeting contact with environ-mental issues, once per year or even onetime only in their life? There is evidencethat having a direct experience outdoors,in the natural environment, is significant indeveloping awareness and understandingand enhancing environmental educationoutcomes. (Stapp 1970; Press 1994;Simmons 1998). A school student havinglearnt of an environmental issue takeshome the message, spreading it in thefamily, scolding their parents for doingthings that are environmentally destruc-tive. It is reasonable to expect this to occurin a limited number of households andthere is certainly reason for optimismwhen working with children.But there is a

whole community out there to be influ-enced. Recognizing that ‘now is the timeto make such influence effective’, we askourselves ‘what means exist to achievingprofound or sustained attitudinal andbehavioural change among adults, peoplefrom non-English speaking background,industry leaders and decision makers?’. Inanswering that question in the past, manyprojects have subscribed to a somewhatdidactic mode of communication ratherthan drawing on ‘action’ learning, estab-lished adult learning principles or Tilden’ssix principles of successful interpretation(Tilden 1977). GWS itself initially assumedthat the problem was a lack of awareness,and set about providing informationthrough a freely available informativenewsletter, local media coverage and soon.This was based on the assumption that,once informed about the importance ofthe environment, threats and potentialsolutions, people would be stung intoaction and pitch in to help reverse theproblems. After 8 years and little changein measures such as voluntarism, how-ever, we are now more aware of the inter-play of factors (many beyond the reach ofthe GWS community program) that arerequired to bring about changed behav-iour and stimulate environmental activism(Hine et al. 1987; Syme et al. 1993; Geller1995; Gardner & Stern 1996).


F E A T U R E

The Bonnyrigg group of the Sathya Sai organization undertaking a community planting. Community groups usually plant in sites that are difficultto access for mechanical planting or which have special requirements. This cultural group (with many of the members of Indian Fijian background)have been volunteering with Greening Western Sydney for about 6 years. (Photo: Daniel Williams, Greening Australia)

Restorat ion, a newparadigm inenvironmenta l ismA question that lies at the heart of thispuzzle is: what processes develop a cul-

ture of environmentalism? Jordan (1994)has investigated the importance of ecolog-ical restoration as a basis for a new envi-ronmental paradigm. Restoration engagesa range of physical, intellectual, social and

emotional faculties in the participantand actually entails a kind of recapitulationof humans’cultural evolution.Through thisengagement the restorationist revisitshistory while trying to reverse its effects.The restorationist must conjure an imageof the predisturbance system, recall thehistoric impacts that brought aboutthe changes and understand them inorder to reverse them. The restorationistthen sets about making his or her ownchanges to set the system back in motiontowards recovery.

Jordan further describes the ‘deeperprocesses’ that take place for the restora-tionist. He observes that although wecan change nature without knowing whatwe are doing (the damage done throughinappropriate land use), it is virtuallyimpossible to change it back withoutcomprehending in some detail both thesystem and the precise ways in which wehave influenced it. He suggests that a walkin a protected wilderness, where we arerequired to take nothing but photos andleave nothing but footprints, is a non-par-ticipatory experience that fails to engagethe majority of human consciousnessand claims that the cultural value of thoseprotected landscapes is thus diminished.Against this backdrop he goes on to sug-gest that the most valued and valuablenatural areas forming the basis of a cultureof environmentalism will be restored land-scapes and not protected natural areas.

Only a small proportion of the popula-tion is engaging with ecological restora-tion even in the areas of greatest Bushcareactivity. But the mechanism seems to havebeen well identified by Jordan. As long asthere are plenty of on-ground projects, it isclear to us from our experience in thisarea, that people can, by these ‘deeperprocesses’, form genuine and lasting feel-ings for the environment without the needto read volumes of text or hear hours ofspeech.

Community involvement inGWS restoration

GWS entered its tenth year in the year2001. Over that length of time the com-munities of Australia have been exposed tolarge volumes of ‘information’ about our


F E A T U R E

The Living in Harmony project, funded by the Department of Immigration and MulticulturalAffairs, sought to involve culturally diverse community and student groups in volunteer activitiesrelated to Greening Western Sydney. Many of the activities focused around the GreeningAustralia Community Nursery where a group of 40 students (from 17 different nationalbackgrounds) studying English at Blacktown TAFE potted approximately 4000 tree seedlings,mostly Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata). [Photo: Judy Christie, Greening Australia]

environment. Global, national and regionalenvironmental issues are covered regularlyin the media with an array of superlativesused to describe their seriousness. GWShas seen very little change in the rateof volunteering for the environment;evidence that information alone makeslittle difference to the levels of volunteerparticipation.

GWS has the capacity for a high volumeof people to have hands-on involvementwith restoration and, little-by-little, thecommunities of western Sydney can betaken through the process of engagingmore deeply as described above. The nextquestion is how to reach unmotivatedcommunities, get them on the ground andinvolved with these hands-on experiences(Platt et al. 2001). The number of commu-nity hours dedicated to the project havebeen boosted lately and has been valuedto exceed $70 000 for each of the last3 years. We believe that this increase isthe result of our changed approach to theorganization of activities and would bevery interested in forming partnershipswith research organizations to testwhether this is the case.

Accessing cul tura l lydiverse communit ies

The environmental message must bewidely received to be effective and thecommunities of western Sydney are veryculturally diverse. This suggests that thefaults of a didactic, information-basedmethod to extend information and ideasinto the community are more pronouncedwhen one considers the challenge ofextension among communities from non-English speaking backgrounds wherecommunication can be affected by bothlanguage and the medium used (NSWEnvironment Protection Agency 1997b).Differing perceptions of the value of indi-vidual action may also present barrierswith some cultural groups (Suk-lin &Stimpson 1997).

However, it is also possible that somerecent migrants may even be more readyto bond with their new environment thansome members of the more establishedcommunities. The 1997 EPA research(NSW Environment Protection Agency1997a, 1997b) included analysis of themost important issues as perceived by

different language groups in the commu-nity.These reflected similar views to thoseobtained from the general community and,in some cases, the environment was givenan even higher priority.For the Vietnamesecommunity, for example, most of whomlive in western Sydney, the environmentwas considered the second most importantissue for the NSW government (NSW Envi-ronment Protection Agency 1997b).

Increasingly, more migrants are comingto Australia through the skill stream of theimmigration program and it appears manyof these highly skilled and well-educatedmigrants are choosing to live in westernSydney, usually because of the affordablehousing.

With funding from a CommonwealthGovernment Project called ‘Living inHarmony’, Greening Australia has beenaiming to include culturally diverse groupsin Bushcare activities. Through thisproject, several focus group discussionswere initially held with students studyinghigher level English courses at Blacktownand Granville campuses of TAFE. Thesediscussions revealed a high level of aware-ness and understanding of environmentissues including salinity, stormwater pollu-tion and the value of maintaining naturalvegetation.Many of the students had comefrom countries where environmentaldegradation was a problem and concernfor the quality of their environment wasoften one of the reasons they had chosento come to Australia. Despite their gener-ally pro-environmental attitudes, however,few of these individuals (working hard toestablish themselves in a new country)were willing to get involved in helping involunteer activities in their own time.

Nonetheless, it has been possible todevelop an effective environmental activi-ties outreach program among non-Angloresidents of western Sydney by identify-ing and approaching existing cohesivegroups. Many groups already meet or goon outings together for their own socialoutcomes. Seeking to marry this withenvironmental activities is a sound basisfor working efficiently with the com-munity and would seem far better thanappealing to individuals or the ‘generalpublic’. Environmental Open Days for thegeneral public, for example, have always


F E A T U R E

Chinese-Australian girls picking Austral Indigo (Indigofera australis) seed for Greening WesternSydney. All publicity for community activities is important. This group of friends responded to asmall item in a newspaper mentioning a GWS seed picking activity. Since their first activity, thegroup has continued to come along to a number of weekend nursery days. [Photo: Judy Christie,Greening Australia]

been poorly attended in Western Sydney,especially in the Corridor lands that aresomewhat disconnected from residentialcommunities. On several occasions invest-ment in site ‘set up’, staff and victuals washard to justify and morale and enthusiasmhard to maintain. GWS had never brokenthat pattern until new strategies werepursued.

In tandem with schools programs, there-fore, most activities in the GWS calendarnow revolve around a prearranged grouprather than directed to ‘the public’. Stafftime in facilitating activity days is betterutilized and staff morale is easier tomaintain. Productivity on the ground isincreasing, and we hope that increasingsensitivity to (and a sense of responsibilityfor) the environment of South CreekCatchment is developing within the indi-viduals involved.

Conclusion

After a consultation process in 2000 withover 70 western Sydney organizations andmore than 400 members of communitygroups, the Western Sydney Regional Stateof the Environment Report 2000 articu-lated a summary vision:

Western Sydney is a place with a strong

identity, a deep pride in place, and its

widely diverse community is learning to

live together within a unique natural

environment.

The number one issue raised across theworkshops was ‘Natural Environment Her-itage’ — not air, not water — but the bush(Western Sydney Regional Organisation ofCouncils 2000, www.wsroc.com.au).

Whether the work of Greening Aus-tralia has contributed to this outcome ornot, we will never know as surveys werenot undertaken before and after our workcommenced. What we do know, how-ever, is that Greening Australia has devel-oped strategies for ecological restorationand community development over nearly9 years of work in the GWS project.Sustained commitment to the project byDUAP has enabled consolidation of ideas,treatments and results. Without this sus-tained approach and a vision that allowsparticipants to not be demoralized by

ongoing symptoms of ecosystem dysfunc-tion, it is unlikely that the GWS projectwould have progressed to a point wherewe can begin to see biological and culturalchanges emerging from the combinedinput of government and community.

To some practitioners, these neces-sarily slow processes may be already wellaccepted. However we have embarkedupon long-term projects in an age wheninstant results hold great attraction andthe gradual is often discounted. It is nec-essary therefore to advocate for the con-tinuation of approaches that harness asteady growth in both the ecological andcultural sides of our work. In this way, andparticularly by linking the ecological withthe cultural, we anticipate that changewill be based on more solid foundation.While it is impossible to describe pre-cisely how and when our vision of restora-tion will be achieved (at least as long asthe degradation phase if not longer) webelieve that ongoing close engagement bythe stakeholders, constantly drip-fed by asustained program of activities in GWS, ispresumed to have the highest chance ofsuccess.

Restoration projects in areas such aswestern Sydney where degradation isextensive and diffuse, are likely to playa major role in developing sustainablelandscapes.We hope that these restorationworks will provide a powerful opportunityto further develop a culture of environ-mentalism in a community that needs,for the sake of securing its own future, tobecome more deeply committed to con-servation management.

Acknowledgements

In preparing this paper the authorsreceived valuable advice from Sally Ashand David Warren, and Daniel Williams.There would be no material to reflectupon were it not for the inspiring contri-bution of all the staff and volunteers (pastand present) of the Greening WesternSydney project.There would be no projectwithout the commitment from the NSWDepartment of Urban Affairs and Planningand the trusting support of the CityWest Region Land Management Branch.Enquiries about the project can be

directed to the Project Manager, DanielWilliams. Email: [email protected]

References

Gardner G. T. and Stern P. C. (1996) Environmen-tal Problems and Human Behaviour. Allwynand Bacon, Boston.

Geller E. Scott (1995) Actively caring for the envi-ronment, an integration of behaviourism andhumanism. Environment and Behaviour, 27,184–195.

Greening Australia (NSW) (1999) ManagementPrinciples to Guide the Restoration and Reha-bilitation of Indigenous Vegetation. GreeningAustralia (NSW) Inc, Marrickville.

Hine M., Hungerford H. R. and Tomera A. N.(1987) Analysis and synthesis of research onresponsible environmental behaviour: a meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education18, 1–18.

Jordan William R. III (1994) ‘Sunflower forest’:ecological restoration as the basis for a newenvironmental paradigm. In: Beyond Preserva-tion: Restoring and Inventing Landscapes,(eds A. Dwight Baldwin Jr, J. De Luce andC. Pletsch) pp. 17–34. University of Minne-sota Press, Minnesota.

NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning(2000) Sydney Regional Environmental Planno. 31 — Regional Parklands. NSW Depart-ment of Urban Affairs and Planning, Sydney.

NSW Environment Protection Agency (1997a)Who Cares about the Environment in 1997?Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills,and Behaviour in NSW, A Community Survey1997. NSW Environment Protection Agency,Chatswood.

NSW Environment Protection Agency (1997b) TheEnvironment and NSW Ethnic Communities.NSW Environment Protection Agency,Chatswood.

NSW Environment Protection Agency (2001) WhoCares about the Environment? 2000. Environ-mental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviour inNSW, A Community Survey in 2000. NSWEnvironment Protection Agency, Sydney.

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2000a)Native Vegetation Maps of the CumberlandPlain Western Sydney. Interpretation Guide-lines. NSW National Parks and WildlifeService, Hurstville.

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2000b)Native Vegetation Maps of the CumberlandPlain, Western Sydney. Technical Report.NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service,Hurstville.

NSW Scientific Committee (1999) Final Determi-nations 1997 NSW Scientific Committee.NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service,Hurstville, Sydney.

Perkins I. (1992) Horsley Park Corridor Land andVegetation Management Plan. Unpublishedreport to the NSW Department of UrbanAffairs and Planning, Land ManagementBranch.

Perkins I. (1994a) The reconstruction and fabrica-tion of native plant communities: an integratedapproach — the Horsley Park Corridor CaseStudy. In: Bushland in Our Cities and Suburbs,Part 2: Making Bush Regeneration Work, (ed.


F E A T U R E

J. Bowen) pp. 64–72. Nature ConservationCouncil of New South Wales, Sydney.

Perkins I. (1994b) Eastern Creek Corridor (Glen-denning) Land and Vegetation ManagementPlan. Unpublished report to the. NSW Depart-ment of Urban Affairs and Planning, LandManagement Branch.

Perkins I. (1995) Plough and Harrow (Horsley ParkCorridor) Land and Vegetation ManagementPlan. Unpublished report to the NSW Depart-ment of Urban Affairs and Planning, LandManagement Branch.

Perkins I. (1997) Hoxton Park Corridor (Nth) Landand Vegetation Management Plan. Unpub-lished report to the NSW Department ofUrban Affairs and Planning, Land Manage-ment Branch.

Perkins I. (1998) South Creek Corridor Land andVegetation Management Plan. Unpublished re-

port to the NSW Department of Urban Affairsand Planning, Land Management Branch.

Perkins I. (1999) Ropes Creek Corridor Land andVegetation Management Plan. Unpublishedreport to the NSW Department of UrbanAffairs and Planning, Land ManagementBranch.

Platt S., Richards P., MacLennan F. and Edwards J.(2001) Bridging social barriers: what turnspeople on to biodiversity? Ecological Manage-ment and Restoration 2, 1.

Press K. (1994) Teaching green. In: EnvironmentEducation, Imperatives for the 21st Century(eds. J. Bowen). James Nicholas Publishers,Albert Park, Australia.

Simmons D. (1998) Using natural settings for envi-ronmental education: perceived benefits andbarriers. Journal of Environmental Education29, (3), 23–31.

Stapp William B. (1970) Environmental encoun-ters. Journal of Environmental Education 2,(1), 35–41.

Suk-Iin G. L. Y. and Stimpson P. (1997) Environ-mental attitudes and actions: people’s percep-tions of the effectiveness of their actions andChinese cultural context. Australian Journal ofEnvironmental Education 13, 55–60.

Syme G. J., Bevan C. E. and Sumner N. R. (1993)Motivation for reported involvement in localwetland preservation. The roles of knowledge,disposition, problem assessment, and arousal.Environment and Behaviour 25, 586–606.

Tilden F. (1977) Interpreting Our Heritage, 3rd edn.The University of North Carolina Press,Chapel Hill, USA.

Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Coun-cils (2000) Western Sydney Regional State ofthe Environment Report 2000, Sydney.


F E A T U R E

Rehabilitating Western Sydney’s bushland: Processes needed for sustained recovery

Documents

Transcript of Rehabilitating Western Sydney’s bushland: Processes needed for sustained recovery